4 ms·

What is the difference between providing UBI and Healthcare? If there is a net benefit for the society if Healthcare is provided, will you agree with the gover

by Oletros 10y ago

What is the difference between providing UBI and Healthcare? If there is a net benefit for the society if Healthcare is provided, will you agree with the government providing it?

bonniemuffin 10y ago
One difference is that UBI allows individuals to spend the money on whatever they need most, rather than requiring central planning to decide what they need. There's some evidence to indicate this may make it more efficient in delivering life-improving value to the recipient.
wyager 10y ago
Not the GP, but yes I would. The problem is that this is very hard to demonstrate for several reasons. First, most analyses assume that healthcare is fungible, so anyone who "has healthcare" is considered to be in the same boat. This is untrue. Most government-provided healthcare systems rank quite poorly in terms of wait times, fatality rates, etc. compared to private healthcare. Second, it's hard to distinguish the benefit of government medical systems from the benefit of freeing the private medical system from legal red tape. For example, many people cite lower drug costs as a benefit of government medicine. This is not an intrinsic feature of "single-payer" healthcare, but rather a result of the fact that drug agencies in the US have the full weight of the patent system behind them in order to create artificial scarcity and drive up prices. In other countries, since the government both buys drugs and controls IP, the government always has the threat of removing IP rights to a drug if a company fails to provide a "reasonable" price, which simulates actual competition. One could get the same effect by changing the nature of medical IP rather than taking the drastic measure of publicizing drug purchases. That is a utility analysis I'd really like to see. Third, one must include the utility of having a choice. There are both psychological and practical components to this, but it's better when you're not forced to pay for a service you don't want. I know how good private healthcare can be; just go to a tourist hospital in Mexico or India. Truly an awesome experience. A super easy way to get all the alleged benefits of socialized healthcare (especially affordability) is just to deregulate the shit out of hospitals. A lot of Americans are scared about that because they think deregulation is synonymous with the triangle shirtwaist factory, but it's truly a mind-bending experience how good the healthcare is in medically deregulated countries.
- Oletros 10y ago
  > Most government-provided healthcare systems rank quite poorly in terms of wait times, fatality rates, etc. compared to private healthcare. I suppose that you can provide sources for your claim. > but it's truly a mind-bending experience how good the healthcare is in medically deregulated countries If you can afford it, can the Mexican and Indian citizens afford that health care in "tourist hospitals"?
  - wyager 10y ago
    Not really interested in finding a study that happens to support that particular claim, especially since "quality" in this case is 100% subjective, so someone else could very reasonably disagree with me. All I can talk about is my experience; take it as nothing more than an opinion. The NHS sucks, Canadian healthcare sucks, US healthcare is good but expensive and overcomplicated, Mexican healthcare is great. I have heard from friends how Indian healthcare is similarly excellent, and French and German healthcare suck (unless, in the German case, you are a US citizen with US insurance, then they'll actually treat you well because they can get paid for it). > If you can afford it, can the Mexican and Indian citizens afford that health care in "tourist hospitals"? That's completely irrelevant. We're comparing the quality of care at the same price point. Obviously poorer people in poor countries won't be able to pay for the luxury healthcare that your average first-worlder can. They also wouldn't be able to afford the kind of socialized healthcare we could afford. Just to give you a price point, 2 hours with a doctor (not a nurse), 2 x-rays, and an ultrasound was under $250 in Mexico. No paperwork, no waiting, no bullshit. Happy medical staff, happy patients. The exact opposite of any red-tape-encumbered first-world hospital.
    - Oletros 10y ago
      If you say that French system suck and Mexican system is great then we can't discuss anything
      - wyager 10y ago
        Which of the two have you used personally?
cderwin 10y ago
Interestingly Charles Murray's universal basic income proposal mandates that $3,000 of the $13,000 annual basic income be payed on health care. http://www.fljs.org/files/publications/Murray.pdf http://www.fljs.org/files/publications/Murray.pdf

by Oletros 10y ago

What is the difference between providing UBI and Healthcare? If there is a net benefit for the society if Healthcare is provided, will you agree with the government providing it?

bonniemuffin 10y ago

One difference is that UBI allows individuals to spend the money on whatever they need most, rather than requiring central planning to decide what they need. There's some evidence to indicate this may make it more efficient in delivering life-improving value to the recipient.

wyager 10y ago

Not the GP, but yes I would. The problem is that this is very hard to demonstrate for several reasons. First, most analyses assume that healthcare is fungible, so anyone who "has healthcare" is considered to be in the same boat. This is untrue. Most government-provided healthcare systems rank quite poorly in terms of wait times, fatality rates, etc. compared to private healthcare. Second, it's hard to distinguish the benefit of government medical systems from the benefit of freeing the private medical system from legal red tape. For example, many people cite lower drug costs as a benefit of government medicine. This is not an intrinsic feature of "single-payer" healthcare, but rather a result of the fact that drug agencies in the US have the full weight of the patent system behind them in order to create artificial scarcity and drive up prices. In other countries, since the government both buys drugs and controls IP, the government always has the threat of removing IP rights to a drug if a company fails to provide a "reasonable" price, which simulates actual competition. One could get the same effect by changing the nature of medical IP rather than taking the drastic measure of publicizing drug purchases. That is a utility analysis I'd really like to see. Third, one must include the utility of having a choice. There are both psychological and practical components to this, but it's better when you're not forced to pay for a service you don't want. I know how good private healthcare can be; just go to a tourist hospital in Mexico or India. Truly an awesome experience. A super easy way to get all the alleged benefits of socialized healthcare (especially affordability) is just to deregulate the shit out of hospitals. A lot of Americans are scared about that because they think deregulation is synonymous with the triangle shirtwaist factory, but it's truly a mind-bending experience how good the healthcare is in medically deregulated countries.

Oletros 10y ago
> Most government-provided healthcare systems rank quite poorly in terms of wait times, fatality rates, etc. compared to private healthcare. I suppose that you can provide sources for your claim. > but it's truly a mind-bending experience how good the healthcare is in medically deregulated countries If you can afford it, can the Mexican and Indian citizens afford that health care in "tourist hospitals"?
- wyager 10y ago
  Not really interested in finding a study that happens to support that particular claim, especially since "quality" in this case is 100% subjective, so someone else could very reasonably disagree with me. All I can talk about is my experience; take it as nothing more than an opinion. The NHS sucks, Canadian healthcare sucks, US healthcare is good but expensive and overcomplicated, Mexican healthcare is great. I have heard from friends how Indian healthcare is similarly excellent, and French and German healthcare suck (unless, in the German case, you are a US citizen with US insurance, then they'll actually treat you well because they can get paid for it). > If you can afford it, can the Mexican and Indian citizens afford that health care in "tourist hospitals"? That's completely irrelevant. We're comparing the quality of care at the same price point. Obviously poorer people in poor countries won't be able to pay for the luxury healthcare that your average first-worlder can. They also wouldn't be able to afford the kind of socialized healthcare we could afford. Just to give you a price point, 2 hours with a doctor (not a nurse), 2 x-rays, and an ultrasound was under $250 in Mexico. No paperwork, no waiting, no bullshit. Happy medical staff, happy patients. The exact opposite of any red-tape-encumbered first-world hospital.
  - Oletros 10y ago
    If you say that French system suck and Mexican system is great then we can't discuss anything
    - wyager 10y ago
      Which of the two have you used personally?

cderwin 10y ago

Interestingly Charles Murray's universal basic income proposal mandates that $3,000 of the $13,000 annual basic income be payed on health care. http://www.fljs.org/files/publications/Murray.pdf http://www.fljs.org/files/publications/Murray.pdf